The day the Federal ALP decided not to overturn the ACT’s civil “not as good as marriage, we promise” same-sex relationship register law (provided it was watered down even more), the Senate Inquiry into the Greens’ Marriage Equality Bill has given its answer: No. No, we are going to continue to discriminate against gay people in the area of marriage, for no reason whatsoever.

Committee says no.

To understand how they reached this unbelievable conclusion, you should first understand the make up of the committee. There were three ALP Senators, two Liberal Senators and one Green. The three ALP Senators and one Liberal Senator recommended:

That there be a national relationships register (separate and unequal);

That DFAT issue certificates of non-impediment to marriage to same sex couples as well, so that it doesn’t stop couples marrying overseas; but we won’t recognise their marriages here;

That the Bill be rejected and inequality in marriage retained.

Even that wasn’t nasty enough for Guy Barnett, who opposed both 1 and 2.

The Green Senator obviously stood for equality and simply recommended that the bill be passed. She also asked the major parties to allow their members a conscience vote on the issue. (They won’t.)

So, ignoring Barnett, who’s a bigot, and Ludlum, who’s the only person on the committee who believes in equality, how did the inquiry reach its conclusion that discrimination should be retained?

Well, they received 28,000 submissions – 11,000 for, 17,000 against. That was a powerful reminder to the ALP candidates that organised religious groups would work hard to defeat them if they didn’t continue to impose their prejudice on gay people. The proponents of the Bill had reason; the opponents had numbers. And organisation. There were more than 9,000 versions of the following stupidity:

To Whom it May concern,

I wholeheartedly and passionately oppose the Marriage Equality Bill 2009 because it would completely change the meaning marriage has had throughout history and have such a detrimental effect. Children need both a mum and a dad in the safety of a marriage relationship and to change the meaning of marriage is to damage this safety.

Why do people think they can change the meanings of words? Do I now say to you that ‘house’ doesn’t mean a place with walls and a roof where you live, it is now a 4 wheeled vehicle with a pillow in the back for sleeping. NO, you’d vehemently object to such a change in definition and that is the case with my feelings and the new marriage bill.

PLEASE do not change the way we view marriage, it should not change as people change – meanings need to stay absolute.

Thankyou,

Michelle Melia

Apart from possibly eventually having to update her 1847 dictionary, Michelle apparently couldn’t actually explain what “detrimental effect” gay marriage would have, or how children “needing both a mum and a dad” has anything to do with marriage, in a world filled with single parent and divorced families. But that doesn’t matter! She’d done what her church told her to do. She’d expressed her bigotry as if it were some kind of principle!

9,000 versions of that same form letter. Another 3,000 of one very similar, simply declaring that This Definition Must Not Change. That’s what hit the Senators. It didn’t matter that the fundamental argument of the letter made no sense whatsoever, much less raised objections which could even plausibly be contrasted with the real rights of the people this legislation directly affects.

Pity their job trying to think of some vaguely plausible reasons for pandering to that mob. This is what they came up with:

Lots of people are passionate about the issue.

We’ve asked the commonwealth to review relationship recognition arrangements, isn’t that enough like “equality” for you?

And we’ve asked that the commonwealth not put bureaucratic hurdles in the way of gay people wanting to marry overseas – we’re bending over backwards for you people!

The current definition is “a clear and well-recognised legal term which should be preserved”, although we are not going to give a single reason why that trumps all the strong arguments against it.

That’s seriously it. You want the last part quoted verbatim? This is, in its entirety, how the committee justified rejecting the bill:

While the committee agrees that the current definition of ‘marriage’ in the Marriage Act 1961 is appropriate, other types of relationships play an important part in Australian society and deserve recognition. For this reason, the committee’s recommendation not to alter the definition of marriage should not be taken as a lack of support for same-sex couples. However, the committee considers that the current definition is a clear and well-recognised legal term which should be preserved. The committee recommends that the Bill not be passed.

What?

Months of investigation, thousands of submissions, and they’re dismissed with a simple “the current definition is a clear and well-recognised legal term which should be preserved”. WHY?!

Patricia Crossin (who ironically gave a speech last week praising the Sex Discrimination Act and saying, about that anti-discrimination legislation, “It is hard to imagine that it could have ever caused controversy, yet it did” – sadly, the parallel seems to have escaped her), David Feeney, Mary Jo Fisher, Gavin Marshall – you are embarrassments to your country. You only look humane compared with Guy Barnett, who has exposed himself as a completely bigoted twit.

One again, the Greens demonstrate that they’re the only party standing up for human rights in this parliament. Which is disappointing, because there’s only five of them.

What to do? Well, obviously this isn’t the end of the fight. There will be no end to the fight until gay people have achieved the equality they so patently deserve. But the sooner it’s done, the better.

The rallies around the country on Saturday are even more critical than ever. The above is a temporary setback, but that’s all it is – the tide of history is on our side. Equality is important. Ending discrimination is important. I’ll be there, because we need to be counted on this until the damned injustice is fixed; I hope you will be, too.

ELSEWHERE: Steve “if the ALP doesn’t stuff up again and preference me, this is my last year of being a Senator” Fielding makes even more of an arse of himself than usual, likening gay marriage to incest.

European history – marriage is about property, inheritence and gaining and maintaining wealth, a large proportion were arranged.

“mum and dad” – single parents

“safety of marriage” – the high proportion of domestic violence in Australia.

Really. I’m not even TRYING and i can find the flaws. The “house does not mean car” argument is just as silly. Clearly it was just the numbers that convinced them because that email is empty of everything bar prejudice.

Oh well, i can sleep at night knowing I emailed the PM on the “Pro” side.

It’s an incredibly simple and straightforward issue of human rights. How can the ALP MPs – the members are in favour of equality and have started passing resolutions along that line, Tasmania first, then Victoria, probably NSW will be next – not see that?

Doubly disappointing as both Marshall and Crossin have been, both on the record and off, two of the more vocal proponents of, if not same-sex marriage, greater equality and fairness for s-s couples. Marshall in particular was quite scathing of his own party in 2004 for supporting the original marriage ban.

I suspect, however, that the outcome and recommendations were pretty much already written and decided upon by Labor caucus long before the Senate committee circus show took place.

Well, either the ALP senators don’t believe in equality for gays or they are just cynical. The senators probably figure that progressives will vote for, or preference, the ALP anyway, while these holy busybodies are much more likely to swing to the conservatives if they don’t get their way. Of course, most religious activists don’t support Labor, but a few undecided, god-fearing voters can be crucial in marginal seats. That’s politics for you.

And I agree with Patrick above: it seems this issue will be resolved using the slowly, slowly approach.

You know what fundamentalism is?

Obviously you don’t. Fundamentalism on this issue represents the adherence to a doctrinal line of thought that cannot be explained by rational or logical argument. Simply saying that “marriage is between man and woman” is a very good eg of fundamentalist thought.

It seems pretty clear that while most people would oppose discrimination against homosexuals, they make an exception when it comes to the particular institution of marriage, because it forces them to go beyond mere non-discrimination, into proactive approval of behaviour many of them consider disgusting.
That is the reality; so why dance around the real reason, and deal with the disgust people feel towards homosexuality. It seems you would rather blather on about how perplexed you are about why people refuse a human right, rather than why people are disgusted. Most people don’t believe it is a fundamental human right to engage in disgusting behavior. So, I think you are jumping the gun here, and are way off base.
The primary and #1 reason people oppose homosexual marriage is because they oppose legitimating and sanctifying disgusting sexual behavior.

“they make an exception when it comes to the particular institution of marriage, because it forces them to go beyond mere non-discrimination, into proactive approval of behaviour many of them consider disgusting.”

No, it doesn’t, because when a couple gets married they’re not asking for bigots’ “proactive approval” at all. Lots of people get married whose behaviour could be considered disgusting – they don’t seek my “proactive approval”, and why should they?

This is about equality before the law – nothing more, nothing less.

“Most people don’t believe it is a fundamental human right to engage in disgusting behavior. “

(A) Why is being homosexual “disgusting behaviour”? Says who? Why?
(B) Do you think the morality police should be determining who can get married by having a look inside their bedrooms to see what they get up to? Heterosexual married couples engage in anal sex. Heterosexual married couples engage in cunnilingus. Should we find out who these people are and annul their marriages?

Do you really believe someone’s fundamental right to equality before the law should be undermined if someone else thinks their sex life is “disgusting”?

This is true; many married people engage in disgusting behavior, but marriage did not begin as a civil institution, it began as a religious one, sanctifying a union that was natural and necessary. So it does seek the “proactive” moral approval of society. The push for homosexual marriage is essentially a push to sanctify a union which they claim is natural and necessary.
You want to know why Homosexual behavior would be considered to be disgusting behavior, and who determines that this is so? Well it is people via their representatives who choose/ not to legalise and normalize certain behavior. In the case of sodomy, they have determined that it is morally indefensible to discriminate against sodomites on the basis of their sexual preferences, and not to discriminate against those who have multiple sexual partners as well. It is quite legal to engage in both practices. They have determined too, that they will decline to “sanctify” either practice.
I use this provocative language because it appears to be from your writing that you prefer provocative language: :bigots”, Morality police”, “Homophobia” pepper your sqweeking on the particular topic. So I use the descriptive terms “homosexual, “sodomy”, and “disgusting”. The rest of the time I just read what you write because I find I mostly agree with your viewpoint. You are waaaay off base on this subject, and the moronic elected leadership have it just about right. But, I suppose that is how change is effected; someone has to be on the ultra extreme so the middle is more palatable.
So let’s examine the “moral police” whom you sneeringly refer to as invading our bedrooms.
You are being dishonest: Homosexuals can get married, just not to each other. You will not be prevented from getting married if you engage in sodomy.
Peeking into bedroom practices is entirely irrelevant. The “moral police”, and “Moral majority” only determine, through their elected representatives, what practices they will normalize and legalise. This happens on a whole range of issues; they determined that “sharing natural resources” is “stealing”, designated certain trade practices as “smuggling”, penalizes the refusal to fund terrorism as “tax avoidance”; compels nudist to clothe themselves in public, etc. etc.
We can discuss the source of this morality, but that is an entirely separate issue. I believe you are being dishonest by pretending that “Same-Sex” marriage is a human rights issue; it is a hot-button issue designed to force the majority to sanctify and legitimize what they consider to be disgusting behavior, and you react with indignant outrage when they resist this “immoral” blackmail.

“marriage did not begin as a civil institution, it began as a religious one, sanctifying a union that was natural and necessary. “

Even if that were true – so what? It’s not a religious institution now. People get divorced. They get married not in church. ATHEISTS get married.

Get over it. Marriage doesn’t belong to the religious people, and hasn’t for a long time.

“You want to know why Homosexual behavior would be considered to be disgusting behavior, and who determines that this is so? Well it is people via their representatives who choose/ not to legalise and normalize certain behavior.”

“In the case of sodomy, they have determined that it is morally indefensible to discriminate against sodomites on the basis of their sexual preferences,”

So what’s your problem with lesbians?

“I believe you are being dishonest by pretending that “Same-Sex” marriage is a human rights issue; it is a hot-button issue designed to force the majority to sanctify and legitimize what they consider to be disgusting behavior,”

I don’t mind language like ‘bigot’ or ‘homophobia’, provided you don’t mind me using the more descriptive “sodomy”, “sodomite” and “Anal Sex”.
Ok, let’s say I don’t speak for the majority, you have still not shown that the majority does not believe it is disgusting. You can believe it to be disgusting but still mindlessly endorse it in the face of “immoral blackmail”. These are not fallacious arguments.
Let’s deal with the issues raised like …. uhmmm …Atheist Get married!!!!
so what? The issue is “sanctifying”, or in a non-religious sense “legitimising”.Surveys show people support sodomy!!
The only reason the “Majority” came into the equation is with talk of “moral Majority”, the argument is that Sodomy is deviant behavior. I realize you believe that the issue is settled, but that is far from the case.
MY question is how does legitimating sodomy become a human right? Why not legitimate behavior such as polygamy; why nor polygamous same-sex marriage?
That is how I framed my original response to this issue, and was accused of derailing the discussion. Now you want to frame the issue as one of a majority. That is quite easily dismissed as a bogus proposition; as would be a direct question asking if people approve of sodomy. People are quite prepared to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexuals, but this an issue of forcing society to legitimatise a lifestyle choice.
Lesbians?
Lesbians are quite welcome to their sexual preferences. It does not change things just because they don’t engage in sexual acts that involve the anal passage. You are still asking society to sanctify the practice without giving a reasonably good reason that I have heard.
If you ask people whether they would discriminate against people they would rightly reject such a notion. The issue is being framed as if it a matter of discrimination, but that is a bogus predicate. It is indicative of a liberal outlook; that people find discrimination offensive. It is not an endorsement of a lifestyle choice.

“The issue is being framed as if it a matter of discrimination, but that is a bogus predicate.”

The Marriage Act presently discriminates against people on the grounds of gender. It takes a right away from someone purely because of their sex.

No good reason has been forwarded as to why this is necessary.

Thus, the discrimination in law should be removed.

The fact that a clear majority of people also approve of the discrimination being removed is just a happy coincidence. The oppression of a minority would be wrong regardless of whether it had popular support.

“People are quite prepared to give homosexual couples the same rights as heterosexuals”

My point exactly. Hence demanding that homosexual couples be given the same rights as heterosexuals. That’s all anybody’s asking.

Wow, one would have to ask if concepts like an open mind and free thought are impregnated with intolerance.

Same-sex marriage and butt sex are not synonyms, you know.

I am sorry, they are not antonyms either. There may be other issues involved, but essentially the objection is to legitimizing “butt-sex”. This is the core argument, why should deviant and morally repugnant behavior be legitimated over the objections of people, minority or not? Shall we have commission a survey to ask that question?

The Marriage Act presently discriminates against people on the grounds of gender. It takes a right away from someone purely because of their sex.
No good reason has been forwarded as to why this is necessary.
thus, the discrimination in law should be removed.

I have shown that this argument is essentially hypocritical; Marriage is not a right afforded to all and sundry. We have prohibitions against marriage on the basis of age, for instance. We have prohibitions against polygamy, which is a sexual preference, just like homosexuality. There is no edict that says we should absolutely non-discriminatory in our regulations.

Nobody gets to have whatever fancy pleases them recognized as legitimate by society.

The fact that a clear majority of people also approve of the discrimination being removed is just a happy coincidence. The oppression of a minority would be wrong regardless of whether it had popular support.

So say you. The wrong question was asked IMO. It should have been whether they endorse anal sex as a lifestyle choice. We would have an entirely different result then.

My point exactly. Hence demanding that homosexual couples be given the same rights as heterosexuals. That’s all anybody’s asking.
You should join us in the rally today!

Not everybody has the right to a marriage certificate. Those already married for instance cannot marry. Those that want to marry an infant child are prohibited from doing so. Those that want to marry their pet will not get the endorsement of society.

You have still not addressed the issue as to why a non-discriminatory society should ENDORSE a tolerated deviant behavior.

If you are saying that sexual attraction to one gender or another is a choice, I think you’re wrong.

You don’t say why you think I am wrong. Why is it not a choice? And why then would it make it any different from other involuntary deviant behaviors; such as pedophilia, for example? Remember that the chemical castration of sexual offenders is becoming more prevalent on the basis that they cannot help themselves. This argument IMO is stillborn. I don’t think you want to go there.

The reason homosexuality is tolerated is because it essentially is considered to be a victimless deviant behavior. That does not mean it is not socially destructive, the jury is still out on that.

On the contrary, that is precisely the problem – one group is being denied something another group has, for no reason other than vague appeals to a tradition of discrimination.

Why then should we discriminate against any group at all? Why discriminate against Muslim or Mormon polygamy? Why discriminate against Hindu arranged Infant Marriage.

What about other oppressed deviant groups? Bestiality? Incest? Are we going to consistently apply these arguments?

It’s quite simple – do you believe humans should be equal before the law? If yes, then there is no argument that can support banning gay marriage.

Yes, but what has this have to do with Marriage? If the issue is legal rights, then these can be codified without a requirement that we ENDORSE a lifestyle.

Having the right to choose a particular lifestyle does not automatically require the endorsement of that lifestyle from society.
Gay marriage is not banned. You can get married, but the marriage is not officially recognized. Just as Muslims still get married to multiple wives; it is allowed, but not legally recognized. Homosexuals have more than that at the moment, because the union is (or will be) legally recognized; just not as a “marriage”, which signifies endorsement of “sanctifies” it.

Nobody here is honest enough to admit that sanctification of endorsement is the goal. It has nothing to with human rights at all.

There is a strong argument against endorsing homosexual marriage: it sanctifies otherwise deviant and morally repulsive behavior.

Because what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms (or relationships) is none of your business, you brainless bigot.

” bigot – One who is obstinately and zealously attached to an opinion that you do not entertain. –Ambrose Bierce

Quite apart from the non sequitur; the fallacy that I care what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is a pathetic attempt to deflect argument that homosexual marriage is a blatant challenge for us to ENDORSE a deviant lifestyle, failing which, we will be FORCED to endorse it using unadulterated bullying tactics.

Actually, you have been provided a link that shows the majority of Australians DO support gay marriage. Did you bother to follow the link or do a google search for it yourself?

My claim is that “many” people consider Homosexual anal-intercourse to be disgusting. Many would probably also consider heterosexual anal intercourse disgusting. “Many” is not “the Majority”, nor does it need to be, to make it right or wrong, as Jeremy has argued.

“I believe JohD is a closet homosexual. (S)he now must disprove this statement to my satisfaction, or accept this to be true.”

Why does it matter? What business is that of yours? Why would you even believe that this would be an insult? You obviously agree then that it is morally repulsive, so you use it to sling mud. Interesting.

The question is why you avoid the most common reason for opposition to the Endorsement of Homosexuality, as opposed to tolerating it. Many people find it repulsive and deviant.

I suppose I have to prove the ‘many’. Well, 40% according to you either “strongly disapprove” or “disapprove” according to your rigged survey. Why do you think that is? Do you deny that many people consider homosexual behavior to be disgusting and deviant?

johd, devoid of any logical argument against same-sex marriage, fires off those classic red herrings righties love so much. johd, I can give you some good reasons why bestiality, incest and pedophilia aren’t legal; because there are serious problems with parties giving informed consent. As for polygamy, nobody’s shown how that could realistically work.

Now, if I may ask, on what grounds do you consider gays to be “morally repugnant.”

johd, I can give you some good reasons why bestiality, incest and pedophilia aren’t legal; because there are serious problems with parties giving informed consent.

When did we make the consent of animals a constitutional and rights issue? Do we require pet owners to prove the consent of their pets?

By extension, we can deduce that beastiality is about the liberty of animals owners. If the want to have fun with their pets, let them do it with pride. It is selfish to deny others this right for petty reasons like informed consent. In actual fact, no reason at all.

But it is considered repugnant on sound basis; a subjective moral judgement. It has nothing to do with informed consent whatsoever. Society makes many decisions on this basis.

You want to pretend you have sound logic on your side, and that any opposition must neccessarily come from “wingnuts’ or “right wingers’ or ‘bigots’. These are all perjorative terms that have no place in rational argument. But rational argument is something in short supply here. Mostly you prefer totalitarian conformity what you want to dictate as a “leftist” agenda. And mostly I agree with the arguments here on a host of issues, but this is a big no-no for me. I don’t care if I do not qualify as a “leftist” as a result.

To answer the last part of your question is simply to re-iterate; I have subjectively analysed the spectacle, and determined that the very idea is disgusting and morally repugnant. It is not prejudice, but clear headed realistic assessment. Admittedly, not a welcome one for a practitioner of anal sex, but honest and straighforward enough.

Nevertheless; your lifestyle choice is your business, just don’t ask me to endorse it, or approve of it.
Fortunately, I am not the decider and society may well decide to endorse Homosexual marraige; heck, they could quite easily be duped into making it compulsory.

“Now, if I may ask, on what grounds do you consider gays to be “morally repugnant.”’

Joh is just fixated on the probability that many of them have anal sex.

So much so that he’d rather that people weren’t asked about marriage equality, but what they think of other people’s lawful activities in their own bedrooms. He’d rather people weren’t thinking about others’ basic rights, but about sphincters and penises.

It’s all he can think about every time the issue is raised. Sphincters and penises.

We’re talking about couples committing their lives together and being treated fairly and without descrimination by the law – he’s wondering what their sphincters and penises are doing.

He’s a bit weird.

You’ve completely destroyed his fatuous attempt to suggest discriminating against gay marriage is no different to prohibiting bestiality and paedophilia (which of course are problems because they break consent), incest (which is a problem because of the likelihood of deformed children) and polygamy (which no-one has suggested a workable model for).

I expect he’ll just ignore you and go on talking about sphincters and penises.

Joh is just fixated on the probability that many of them have anal sex.

This is true Jeremy

He’d rather people weren’t thinking about others’ basic rights, but about sphincters and penises.

This is a polite way of putting it, but OK.

We’re talking about couples committing their lives together and being treated fairly and without descrimination by the law – he’s wondering what their sphincters and penises are doing.

Marriage was long ago determined to be unnecessary by a significant segment of the Community. Legally it is unimportant in the grand scheme of things. There is nothing preventing homosexual couples committing themselves to each other. They just insist on doing it in a way that forces others to accept and endorse their lifestyle choices. They don’t insist on their rights, they insist you have to agree with it and endorse it. If you refuse, you are “weird” snnnnooorrt!!

You need to acknowledge that this is about legitimating homosexuality. It is a sleight of hand to introduce an undeclared agenda, by appealing to a non-existent human rights agenda.

polygamy (which no-one has suggested a workable model for).

Are you serious?

I expect he’ll just ignore you and go on talking about sphincters and penises.

Too late Jeremy.

It does appear that you defintely are crass juveniles, full of abuse and dim-wittisms.

I suspect johd finds it disgusting for the same reason as many people find it disgusting. Human beings like all other successful lifeforms are hardwired for procreation. Homosexuality in all of it’s forms does not achieve that goal, therefore evolution has trimmed down the alternative viewpoints and left us with the majority “natural” view about homosexuality which has the greatest likelihood of continuing the species. i.e it is abhorrent. Those who are arguing this in the framework of “human rights” are barking up the wrong tree (evolutionary speaking).

“I suspect johd finds it disgusting for the same reason as many people find it disgusting.”

I’m not disputing that. I’m wondering why the hell he thinks that his personal hang-ups about other people’s sexual lives should have any bearing on their civil rights before the law.

Many married couples engage in both anal intercourse and oral sex. Neither of these have an evolutionary purpose. Many people find them “disgusting”. If someone is arguing that the law should refuse to recognise gay marriages because anal sex is “disgusting” and some or many gay people practice it, then why aren’t they arguing that the law should refuse to recognise straight marriages because oral sex is “disgusting” and some or many straight people practice it?

“Those who are arguing this in the framework of “human rights” are barking up the wrong tree (evolutionary speaking).”

Why are fundamentalists suddenly Darwinians when it suits them?

Anyway, the fact that a homosexual male marriage will not result in procreation (although in the very near future a lesbian marriage might) is completely irrelevant. Many marriages do not result in procreation, and could never result in procreation. Marriage involving a post-menopausal woman, for example. If procreation is the sole reason for marriage, then why do we let post-menopausal women marry?

I’ll tell you why – because most of us recognise that marriage is about love and commitment between a pair of adults, not just procreation.

SteveC, you suggest that the “disgust” that you, johD and some others feel about homosexuality stems from the fact that..

” evolution has trimmed down the alternative viewpoints and left us with the majority “natural” view about homosexuality which has the greatest likelihood of continuing the species. i.e it is abhorrent.”

This is simply untrue.

“male bottlenose dolphins, who engage in same-sex interactions to facilitate group bonding, or female Laysan Albatross that can remain pair-bonded for life and cooperatively rear young.”

I didn’t ignore it. I am not making the arguments that you are refuting. Johd might be, but I am not. I would say that the majority of men (the ones I know anyway) would find the act of anal or oral sex with a woman less disgusting than the same act between two men. Some would be disgusted and some would be turned on, it’s the relative difference man/woman versus man/man I am talking about. The government should not be legislating on that basis anyway. The govt should be legislating on the basis of what is good for society. Promoting homosexuality is not good for society, but neither is discriminating against people who are homosexual to begin with. That is why many heterosexual people will accept a different civil institution to protect the rights of gay people; – because it is not seen as promoting homosexuality. Whereas expanding the current definition of marriage to include homosexual people is seen as tacitly encouraging homosexuality. It’s only the gay lobby, like the majority on this thread, who won’t accept a win win compromise. They want it all and to hell with the majority. That just make people dig their heels in.

“Promoting homosexuality is not good for society, but neither is discriminating against people who are homosexual to begin with. “

Gay marriage ends the latter. It does not do the former.

Unless you think there’s some way heterosexuals like yourself could be tempted into being gay. What would it take for you, Steve? Do you know any heterosexuals who might switch teams if homosexuality was “promoted” by the government no longer explicitly discriminating against homosexuals?

Not me Jeremy, I’m a bit old for that but I think the prime candidates are children and young teens. The jury seems to be out on what is the cause of homosexuality, genetic, environment, pre birth environment for the foetus, peer group pressure, social influences, something else? Likely cause at this stage seems to be a combination or some or all of these factors. If it is genetic, then that makes it some kind of disability, if it is chemical then lets understand it and prevent it through better education, if it is social / peer group pressure at an early age then the government should not “normalise the practice”

“If it is genetic, then that makes it some kind of disability, if it is chemical then lets understand it and prevent it through better education, if it is social / peer group pressure at an early age then the government should not “normalise the practice””

Sorry, Steve, but that’s crazy. It’s no more a “disability” than liking redheads. It’s not a drug that needs treatment or education to avoid. And you think that gays being treated as equals in the area of marriage will somehow tempt teenagers to become gay?

That’s frankly ridiculous. Are you saying that if gays had been allowed to marry when you were a teenager you might have given it a go? Really?

Sorry Jeremy but I think it’s you who are not thinking clearly about this. If you have a medical or genetic condition which prevents you from producing children then you have a disability, regardless whether that disability results from a mental issue – inability to be sexually aroused by the opposite sex or physical disability e.g low sperm count.
If gays had been allowed to marry (I mean marry using the heterosexual marriage system) when I was a teenager, we would be quite a lot further along the acceptance route by now with homosexuality being portrayed as a completely normal and valid lifestyle choice. That is something I don’t want to see. Thats why I am with KRudd on this matter, which is where we started this conversation and probably a good place to leave it.

“Anyway, putting a few bisexual dolphins aside, can you point me to a thriving, predominately gay, monogomous society?”

As often happens when people comment on articles they havn’t bothered to read, you are making an arse of yourself.

You suggest that the “disgust” that some feel about homosexuality is due to evolution “trimming down” alternative view points, leaving us with the “natural” view of homosexuality, that being that it is “abhorrent”

Is it not a survival mechanism, guided by evolutionary pressures, that female birds pair up to rear their young cooperatively, when there are not enough males?

What about black swans, in whom 25% of couplings are homosexual, and who’s cygnets have a higher survival rate than female/male pairings? That certainly sounds like they are “barking up the wrong tree, evolutionary speaking”

Are you suggesting that group bonding is not important for the survival of a species, and is not important from an evolutionary standpoint, simply because it doesn’t directly lead to reproduction?

“But like any other behavior that doesn’t lead directly to reproduction—such as aggression or altruism—same-sex behavior can have evolutionary consequences that are just now beginning to be considered,”

“Janet Mann, Georgetown University professor of biology and psychology, argues that the strong personal behavior among male dolphin calves is about bond formation and benefits the species in an evolutionary context”